Climate Change, Socialized Medicine and Population Control

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

The quote above is from the book Ecoscience published in 1977. In this book is detailed a plan for a “planetary regime” that would regulate the global population. According to the authors, this regime would be empowered to create specific “compulsory population-control laws” in order to accomplish this aim.

What specific population-control laws did they have in mind? For starters, the authors propose that this regime should have the power to:

1. Compel inferior mothers to either give up their children or have abortions.

2. Sterilize the population through putting “sterilants” into their water and food supply. According the authors of Ecoscience this would be okay as long as “pets” or “livestock” are not harmed.

3. Forcibly implant a sterilizing capsule which would only be removed with “official permission.”
It is clear that the above methods will be successful at curtailing the population if implemented. There is just one problem: How will they convince the people to go along with the program? Their solution is to demonize people that have too many children as having irresponsible “resource-consumption patterns.” They, therefore, need to be compelled to behave more responsibly in order to save the planet and to spread the earth’s finite resources more equitably. An additional rationale is that since government already regulates marriage, why not family size?
Despite these rationales for population control, it is clear that many people are unlikely to be convinced. Therefore, how will such unpopular measures be enforced? In the end, the only way the authors foresee fulfilling their dream will be through the creation of a “planetary regime” and international “police force.”

I don’t know about you, but these proposals are beginning to sound to me like the sick vision of some early twentieth century eugenicist.

Who could come up with such a heinous plan? In fact, one has to look no further than one of the co-authors of Ecoscience, namely, President Obama’s top science and technology advisor, John Holdren. John Holdren and his two co-author’s totalitarian vision for our future is frightening enough, but now he holds the keys to our future through his advisory position with President Obama. If President Obama or the international community wanted to implement some sort of population control measure they have a blueprint in hand. And, unfortunately, I believe the implementation is already underway.

How, you ask? Let us just take a second and examine the ideas and methods that have been used since the book’s publication and by the Obama administration.

It was not long ago that the idea of man-made climate change was not taken seriously. We Americans made a mockery of the “kooky” Europeans who had deluded themselves into a global warming hysteria. But, here we sit on the verge of subjecting ourselves to the very same global cap and trade system that we had previously derided. And guess what? The very same method for tackling the current global warming crisis is the one that had been outlined by Holdren 30 years ago to tackle the “population crisis.” The only way a proposed cap and trade system will be successful is by, you guessed it, restricting the American people’s “resource-consumption patterns.” Not surprisingly, Holdren maintains that his ancient blueprint was inconse-quential and has had nothing to do with the Obama Administration’s current resource restriction model for dealing with climate change.

Finally, as part of the health care debate, President Obama has made repeated claims that his plan will not include rationing. As usual, the truth is quite the opposite. Once again “resource-consumption patterns” will have to be restricted in order for the government to stay within its health care budgetary restraints. Those with the highest consumption patterns will become the targeted group, namely, the elderly. In a recent article in the UK Times Online is described the familiar story of Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, who fortunately is still alive despite being placed on the “Liverpool care pathway plan.” According to the Times, the plan once reserved for “patients who do have only days to live” is now being used “more widely in the NHS, denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying.” Indeed, this death program denies medical care, nutrition, and even water to patients that are not dying and in the case of Hazel still alive nine months later.

This example is by no means unique. I have personally witnessed in the US an increased pressure being injected into the medical establishment to push elderly patients into DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) status and even hospice. The rationale for such a trend has been that we physicians should be aware that medical resources are finite and therefore should be distributed to those that will see the most benefit. This doesn’t always include the elderly. Sound like a “resource-consumption” model to you? Once physicians have fully embraced this rationale we will not be far off from the very same UK death plan here in the US.

In a final sick twist, as Holdren and Obama are able to indirectly restrict the number of children through climate taxation and dispose of the elderly through health care rationing so will they have, unbeknownst to the majority of the rest of us, accomplished their original eugenics inspired population-control dream.